IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (117) CR No. 2048 of 2026 Date of Decision : 05.03.2026 Anil Kumar Seth ...Petitioner Versus Ashwani Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Ranjit S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

1. The present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-12) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the cross-examination of PW-1 was treated as ‘Nil’, and also for setting aside the order of the even date (Annexure P-13), whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling PW-1 for the purpose of cross-examination was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, respondent–plaintiff Ashwani Kumar instituted a suit for separate possession of the suit property and also sought the relief of permanent injunction against the present petitioner and a proforma respondent. Upon notice, the petitioner-defendant appeared through counsel and filed the written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence.

3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P- 12) reveals that PW-1 was present for cross-examination. The learned trial Court observed that it was already 3:15 p.m.; that the matter had been lingering for cross-examination of PW-1; that the cross-examination had been partly recorded; and that the witness had remained present since morning. Finding no justification to adjourn the matter further, the learned trial Court treated the cross-examination of PW-1 as ‘Nil’. On the same date, the petitioner moved an application seeking recall of PW-1 for cross- examination, which too was dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-13).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that valuable rights of the petitioner are involved and that denial of an opportunity to cross- examine PW-1 would seriously prejudice the defence. It is prayed that one effective opportunity be granted to cross-examine PW-1 in the interest of justice.

5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to the respondent as it would unnecessarily delay the proceedings and also entail additional expenses for the respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. Cross-examination is a valuable right of a party and forms an integral part of fair trial. Though the learned trial Court was justified in being concerned about delay in the proceedings, denial of an opportunity to complete cross-examination may result in serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, if one effective opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1, subject to payment of costs.

8. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 04.02.2026 (Annexures P-12 and P-13) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, are hereby set aside, subject ₹

to the petitioner depositing costs of 5,000/- with the District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar.

9. The petitioner-defendant shall appear before the learned trial Court on the date already fixed or on a date to be fixed by the trial Court, and the learned trial Court shall grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examination of PW-1. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted thereafter and, in the event of default, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

10. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jalandhar, for compliance.

11. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

March 05, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GR